text:
How does a taildragger take off? Does it rotate?
All the planes I've ever seen taking off (big airliners) first lift the small front wheel from the ground, then rotate and ultimately lift up.
If the small wheel is on the tail instead, in which sequence are the wheels lifted from the ground? Lifting the tail wheel first would pitch the plane down, so the sequence is most likely different.

There are three different schools of thought there, and one can be selected based on the capabilities and characteristics of the tailwheel aircraft you are flying.

Fly the tail off the ground:  After achieving full power during the start of the takeoff roll, apply forward stick pressure until the tail lifts off and the aircraft assumes a level attitude on the main gear, then hold that pitch attitude for the rest of the takeoff roll.  This technique can be done in most underpowered taildraggers and is useful for short field takeoffs and landings as it minimizes parasite drag and flat plate area during the takeoff roll.  It will require a healthy bootful of right rudder to counter the change in P-Factor as well as gyroscopic precession from the propeller.

Let the tail fly off the ground:  After applying full power with full aft stick deflection, neutralize pitch input to the stick and continue the takeoff roll.  As speed builds, the tail will lift off the ground naturally.  This is the recommended technique when flying high performance tailwheel planes like WWII fighters, etc.  where good rudder authority is needed to counter P-Factor changes and precession.

3-point takeoff:  Apply full power and hold full aft stick as well as additional right rudder to counter for P-Factor.  As speed builds in the takeoff roll, gradually ease up on stick pressure but hold just enough to keep the tailwheel on the runway.  As the airplane lifts off the runway care must be taken to quickly adjust elevator pressure to hold a gradual climb and prevent rapid pitch up and stall.
I once flew an MX2 with an oversized prop offering only about two inches of ground clearance resting on the mains in level attitude.  We were taught to only do 3-point takeoffs and landings and specifically warned not to attempt anything else to prevent a propstrike.

There is also the procedure that involves rotating aggressively nose-up causing the main gear to lift off first. This generally requires good STOL characteristics. See Maule and others.

I've seen demonstrations like that with a Maule Orion.  See video.  Usually it's a wheel takeoff with quick pitch up.  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B-CV6WSkd1g

Once the wings generate enough lift, the tail of the taildragger will lift up at which point only the front wheels are on the ground.
When rotating for take off, the plane will pitch up and that's when the front wheels leave the ground.
Here is a video of a taildragger taking off:

The large ones sometimes take-off from 3-point attitude. For example the B-17. See also here.

It should be pointed out that the reason this works is simply that the tail-dragger sits on the ground more nose-up than is needed for take-off. Or just so, which then results in the 3-point take-off.

While it is true that the method of takeoff described and demonstrated in this answer is a valid method, it is not the only way that tailwheel aircraft takeoff, which seems to be implied.

Is it actually lift that lifts the tail, or wind pressure on the underside of a wing that isn't parallel to the airflow when the tail's on the ground?

@jamesqf since the tail fin is further away from the main wheels than the main wing, it takes much less lift on the tail fin to rotate the plane and lift the tail wheel. That's the main purpose of having a tail fin - to control the pitch of the plane in flight.

@jamesqf: That upwards wind pressure you mention is lift.  The non-airflow-parallelness you describe is called angle of attack, and it's one of the major ways planes generate lift.


text:
Do autopilot headings consider the earth's shape?
How do you set correct heading while cruising across latitudes?
On a flat map, point A might be to point B at, say, heading 060 (intentionally no cardinal headings taken for example, as they don't create this situation). But on a curved surface, like spherical earth, the heading doesn't remain constant- it keeps changing as you move away from or toward the equator, sending aircraft miles off-target over long distances, as a result of pole-bound spiraling of the path.
Is there a formula to determine the optimum heading at the outset (even though it may not 'seem' correct), thereby, reaching the desired point B on the globe at the end of the cruise?

Flying long distances, almost always your heading will have to change. This is more pronounced at higher lattitudes as the meridians come together at the poles. Suppose you fly from Tokyo to New York . The shortest route takes you almost over the North Pole. You'd be heading northerly at first and past the top of the world you have a southerly heading.

At the risk of being pedantic: when an autopilot holds a heading, it does just that: it maintains that heading and doesn't adjust it for great circle effects or magnetic variation or wind drift or anything else -- the autopilot holds that heading. When the autopilot is coupled to a navigation solution (such as "NAV" or "LNAV" coming from an FMC or a GPS), then the A/P will fly whatever route the nav solution commands, which typically (though not necessarily) does compensate for all such things... by changing your heading as required to maintain the desired course.

Yes, almost all modern computer navigation systems take this into account.
The track between two points along the "spherical" earth is called the great-circle track. Except for a N/S heading (or a E/W heading at the equator), the heading will vary along the track. Ed Williams has compiled a formulary for great circle navigation here, mostly derived from the Haversine formula. The formula you are interested in is "Course between points" for calculating the initial heading to fly from point A to point B.

You wrote:

On a flat map, point A might be to point B at, say, heading 060. [...] Is there a formula to determine the optimum heading at the outset (even though it may not 'seem' correct), thereby, reaching the desired point B on the globe at the end of the cruise?

As written in the other answer, this is not how large distanced are flown, as aircrafts follow great circles for a minimal distance. But if you want to fly a constant heading from your outset, this can be done:
Imagine, you have one of these illuminated globes and put it into a paper cylinder, such that the cylinder touches the equator everywhere. All contours of the earth are projected against the cylinder, and you can retrace them with a pen. Unfold the cylinder, and you get a mercator projection:

Mathematically, this can be calculated by this conversion of earth coordinates:
$x=\text{<longitude>}$
$y=\mathop{\rm arsinh}(\tan(\text{<latitude>}))$
and drawing this into a coordinate system where unit length is equal for x and y. (the labels on the y-axis are not y-coordinates, they denote the  latitude.)
As you see, the face of the earth is vertically warped, and the size of continents is not preserved. For example,  Greenland seems to be of the same size as Africa, though it's actually only 7%. Also, distances are not preserved.
BUT: Angles are preserved!
Draw a straight line from your location to any destination, and read the angle between this line and the vertical lines. Follow this heading, and you will reach your destination. Mathematically, you can determine the course by the following formula, but keep in mind that the arctan function does not always give you the correct formula. You need to know if you have to fly NE, SE, SW or NW and apply this do the value. (Can be done automatically with more math, too.)
$$\alpha=\arctan\frac{x_{dest}-x_{depart}}{y_{dest}-y_{depart}}$$

As said above, distances are not preserved. This straight lines are by far not the shortest routes and your passengers will complain about the long flight, as well as your airline about all the burned fuel...

EDIT:
To answer the question in the comment:
In a standard mercator projection as above, only pure north-south tracks as well as tracks on the equator lie on great circles and so are the shortest route.
Of course, you can put that paper cylinder around your globe in an other orientation, for example touching the 0-meridian instead of the equator. This way, you get the transversal mercator projection, which looks like this:

(by Lars H. Rohwedder, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Transversal_Mercator_0.jpg)
In this map, straight horizontal lines will lie on great circles, but the heading (angle to meridians) will change during flight.
You can also use other arbitrary orientations for the cylinder, like this 45° projection, looking even more weired.
However, if you are searching for a constant heading and don't care about distance, the standard mercator projection gives the answer.

So what this is saying is that there is no straight line path is the shortest distance (follows the great circle) or at least close to it?  Or can you do a mercator projection that centers around the poles, for instance to approximate the shortest distance between New York and Tokyo?

@Michael along the meridians of longitude (i.e. directly northerly and southerly tracks, for example Stockholm - Cape Town), great circles equals rhumb lines (with "rhumb line" being another word for a straight line on a mercator projection)

Yes. They fully take into account that the world is flat.
Just kidding. Long distance route planning is a complicated process. Usually commercial flights follow fixed, well-established routes. For example, when flying from North America to Europe, aircraft generally use North Atlantic Tracks. These tracks are designed in a way that is fully cognizant of the oblate sphericity of the Earth.

if only it were that easy... i could just fly my plane into one of those tracks and be at my destination, no problem.  sorry, this question is asking how the autopilot handles intermediate heading changes required to stay in that track.

"when flying to Europe aircraft generally use North Atlantic Tracks." You seem to have forgotten that planes fly to Europe from places other than North America.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
What is this strange thing under Tu-95 which looks like a horse-fly's eye?
I was seeing this photo and saw an strange thing under the bomber. Too much looks like a compound eye. What could be it?

Obviously it's the bottom half of a disco ball.

If there was one thing the Soviets were known for, it was their disco ragers.  So many rollerskates.

According to this site it is a MAK-UL IR Threat Warning System, an infrared based missile approach warning system. Here is a closer picture:

(picture by Miroslav Gyűrösi)

Do you have any idea why it's so oddly coloured?

@Sanchises Nope, I tried to find more information on how it works exactly, but (at least with my Google skills) I could only find the name of this thing. I guess one needs to search for the right terms in Russian to find out more, but I don't speak Russian :(

No worries, my Russian isn't exactly up to scratch either. It just looks so puzzlingly random and strangely futuristic, I wonder what the design behind it is.

Infrared windows are often red or orange, depending on the region of the infrared spectrum where they will be used.  I would conjecture there are several types of detector for different parts of the spectrum behind the windows, and that there are several copies of each type to view different directions.  Possibly some of the "windows" are just light weight fillers.  https://www.thorlabs.com/navigation.cfm?guide_id=2367

More information on IR detection and sensor protection. Each material (color) filters its own band and none can do all without being subject to aerodynamic heating.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What are the implications of no longer requiring a complex aircraft for the commercial/CFI checkride?
Are there any other implications for flying Complex Airplane (getting endorsements, etc.) now that the CFI and Commercial Pilot Practical tests no longer require the applicant to provide a Complex Airplane for the exam (As of April 24, 2018)?
The official FAA Notice says

There is no change to the complex airplane training and endorsement requirements of § 61.31(e) or to the commercial pilot aeronautical experience requirements of § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) or part 141 appendix D.

So the requirements haven't changed but how about becoming an authorized instructor in a complex airplane now that you could technically become an instructor without ever flying in a complex airplane?
Even though I am supportive of this change, a fundamental change like this usually means there are some unforeseen circumstances, and I'm wondering if there are any far-reaching changes that aren't immediately obvious.

It doesn't say you don't have to fly one, just that you don't need to use one for the exam. It doesn't change any of the experience requirements.

First, as Ron pointed out (and as the FAA Notice you quoted says), you still need 10 hours complex (or turbine) training time for a commercial single-engine certificate. The only change is that you no longer need to do the checkride in a complex aircraft.
Your main question seems to be if it will eventually be possible to instruct in a complex aircraft without having any complex experience. That could indeed happen if the FAA ever implements a proposal to allow Technically Advanced Aircraft (TAA) time as an alternative to complex time for commercial single-engine. Then you could fly a Cirrus (or another fixed-gear TAA) instead of something complex and become a CFI with no complex experience. That proposal requires a change to the regulations so it's a bigger deal than just changing the ACS and it hasn't happened yet.
But, it's already the case today that instructors don't need to be endorsed in the aircraft they instruct in: if they aren't acting as PIC then they don't need to be qualified as PIC. (Whether doing that is a good idea or not is another issue.) So instructors without endorsements wouldn't be a new issue at all, although it might become a more important and common one.
However in reality, insurance often determines what an instructor can do, not the FAA. I fly a C182RG, which is a complex aircraft, and the insurance policy specifies the experience requirements for instructors who use it. In a hypothetical future where you can become a CFI with zero complex time, you simply wouldn't meet the insurance requirements to provide instruction in that aircraft. I know insurance isn't mandatory anyway, but for CFIs and other professionals it's often the deciding factor in what they can and can't do.
As for unintended consequences of this change, I have no idea and we can only speculate. For example, complex single-engine aircraft prices may fall as flight schools sell them off.

Thanks for your answer, I know SE isn't a place to speculate, so my question was really, more "what impact am I not seeing," which as you pointed out, you still need 10 hours of complex time for Commercial, so perhaps they won't be selling off their complex single-engine airplanes after all.

@Canuk There's no requirement to do your complex training in a single-engine aircraft; the big schools can now have students do CMEL first and then add CSEL using whatever basic trainer they use for private/instrument. There's been a lot of discussion on AOPA and Reddit about how ERAU and others are pushing this (and the TAA thing) hard for economic reasons. No one (?) is making complex singles anymore and it's becoming difficult to find and maintain them. That also means it's slowly becoming less and less likely that commercial pilots will ever fly them professionally.

Good point. Because the complex singles being made are turboprops (TBM, Pilatus) which would require a type rating anyway? I guess it's the guys who aren't interested in getting their MEL but want to become instructors that might have a hard time getting their CPL without access to a complex airplane for those 10 hours. This is what I was looking for: even though you don't need to produce a complex airplane for the test, FAR 61.129 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.129 still requires 10 hours of complex aircraft experience for the certificate.

@Canuk To be completely correct, 61.129 requires 10 hours training in a complex or turbine aircraft. With this change, you could do the training hours in a Cessna Caravan (no type rating required, by the way) then take the checkride in a 172 and you'd have a commercial single-engine certificate with zero complex time. But that's not a very economical way to do it, at least for most people!

To add to Pondlife's answer, the main economic reason driving this change is the high cost of insurance for single engine complex airplanes.  People forget to put the landing gear down or it fails to come down and the airplane gets totaled in a gear up landing.  The insurance companies consider complex airplanes more of a risk.

@Canuk Apparently the change to the regulations is coming soon. From 27 August it will be possible to use complex, turbine or TAA time for commercial ASEL. There's a new definition of TAA included in the new regulations and it looks like it would include a C172 with G1000, for example.

Tangent: Not to mention the thousands of CFIs and commercial pilots who used an Arrow to meet the requirements of high performance endorsements.  Most of those Arrows were not MORE than 200 hp.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Does the country of issue of an EASA medical certificate matter?
I am choosing the country where to do my initial for the EASA Class 1 medical. The choice is to either do it in the UK (let's ignore Brexit for now) or in Italy. In both countries I would get (if deemed fit) an EASA Class 1.
My question is: to fly and train in Europe, how important is the country of issue?
If I pass the medical, I am planning to go to an FTO in the UK.

I discovered that it's probably better to do the medical in the UK as the country of issue of your licenses has to be the same as the country of issue of your medical. This way, I avoid the conversion.


text:
Why can't I exactly match the same points on different VFR sectional charts?
I am taking a trip from somewhere on the Phoenix sectional up to the grand canyon.  I wanted to just splice the two sectionals together on my computer and then print them out.
I picked a coordinate to align (as you can see in the first image), and with that coordinate aligned, almost nothing else on the map matched up.
Why aren't the sectional maps standardized to people can do this more easily?  I would have loved to make a "custom" map out of the Phoenix sectional, Vegas sectional, and Grand Canyon map, but it's virtually impossible without modifying them further, which I don't want to do in case of messing up the scale and/or orientation.

Sounds like a map projection issue: what you're trying to do would be fine if we lived on a flat earth but it doesn't work on a sphere.

But the maps take into account the curvature of the Earth, right?

@SpongeBob that only goes so far

So how does http://skyvector.com/ make everything match up?  (Which I now realize isn't perfect, but it's pretty close)

Presumably it stores the map in spherical coordinates, and projects to rectangular on an as-needed basis.

This is by no means specific to aviation charts. Most likely it's simply general property of local maps.
Maps are flat, but earth surface is (approximately) spherical. So to represent ground features on the flat map a projection is needed and this projection can't preserve all relations—angles, distances and areas—precisely. So there are many different projections that distort different properties.
Small area maps are usually drawn in azimuthal projection with the central point in the centre (or significant point near the centre) of the mapped area. While such projection does not preserve exactly any properties out of the centre, the distortion grows with distance from the centre, so for small areas it's appropriate.
This however means, that each section uses different projection and that near the edges the maps will be distorted each in a slightly different way. That's why the maps can't be easily laid out to form a bigger map. You would have to lay them out on a sphere.
You could try using some software for stitching panoramatic photos (here is one such you can use for free). That should be able to apply suitable transformation to make the maps match. At the cost of increasing the distortion.

According to Wikipedia - "The US systems of VFR (visual flight rules) sectional charts and terminal area charts are drafted on the  [Lambert conformal conic projection] with standard parallels at 33°N and 45°N." - so I'm still surprised adjacent maps, at the same scale, can't be joined.

Hm, actually looking at the screenshot it really seems more like imprecise drawing then projection difference, because some lines are offset to one side and other to the other. And projection difference would have them skewed the same way with the difference increasing from the reference point.

The FAA's graphical index of sectional charts
shows all the charts for the coterminous 48 states laid out on a single
map projection, but the areas covered by the charts do not all align
with the rectangular boundaries of that projection.
If you were to obtain copies of all the charts and attempt to lay them
out according to that projection, you would have to rotate the western
charts clockwise and the eastern charts counterclockwise.
Any two contiguous charts might or might not be rotated at the same angle;
charts directly north or south of each other (several pairs along the
northern edge of the 48 states) might be aligned, but other pairs of charts
that have an east-west offset (most of the other adjacent pairs)
are likely to be rotated at a different angle.
So even if the charts are truly drawn to the same projection
and are perfectly executed, you will not be able to align them perfectly
just by moving them up, down, left, or right.
You will need some rotation as well.

There are a few reasons that may cause this. First off I assume you are getting your images from here in which case if you look at the 2 PDF downloads in question the maps were issued on different dates. Although its unlikely it is possible that things were moved on the map between these 2 issue dates.
I cant tell where you are trying to join the maps but if you are trying to join them mid map (not edge to edge) you may have issues even though they should line up. This is a decent write up of the different kinds of map projections and how distortion comes into play when projecting a spherical surface on a flat piece of paper. This distortion could cause some of the issues. I would also thing some error can end up in maps when they are printed. If you use apps like foreflight or the like you will see that the points which are often GPS based dont always line up perfectly with the map.
Lastly, you should NOT make your own maps to be used for actual navigation. There are many issues this could create that I will not go into as it does not have to do with the answer to the question.

WAC and sectional charts use Lambert conformal conic projections. the scale error varies with lattitude to preseve great circle as straight lines. Cones have flat edges sphere's do not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_conformal_conic_projection

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What should I do after failing the oral portion of my private pilot check ride?
What steps should I take after failing the oral portion of the check ride for my PPL?

AOPA has a great article about this, and it basically says:

Since you failed the oral, more studying is probably in order.
You will need to receive training in the area(s) of the checkride that you failed from a flight instructor.
Once the flight instructor feels that you are proficient and able to pass the checkride, they will sign your logbook so that you may take it again.
Schedule your checkride again.  If you take it within 60 days, you will only need to test on the areas that you failed.  After 60 days you have to take the entire checkride over again.
Take your Notice of Disapproval (8060-5) with you to the checkride (you didn't burn it did you??)

Like the article says, it isn't the end of the world!  About 20% of first time applicants fail their checkride, but all you have to do is use it as a learning experience and let it make you an even better pilot.
If you have questions about specific subjects, you can also ask questions here and we will be happy to help you out!

I'm in that 20%.

@fbynite Did you retake your checkride and get your license?

I did, I'm now working as a commercial pilot.

@fbynite Awesome!  You should add an answer describing what happened and what you had to go through so that others can learn from your experience.

Keegan, I understand you may not want to specify where you had difficulty, but without knowing that, I'm afraid it's going to be difficult for anyone to help direct you.
Let me throw out two thoughts:
1) If you failed on regulatory questions, that is a lot like studying for a spelling bee.  Reading, retention, and repetition is hard work, but required.
2) If you failed on the "what if" questions, I have a feeling you have even more work to do.  I think the "what if" questions are what separates the great pilots from the pilots I'd refuse to fly with.  "What if" you lose your engine over this spot at 7,500 feet MSL with the winds aloft 160º at 30 knots at 6,000 and 180º at 45 knots at 9,000?  If you didn't know instinctively at every moment of your flight where you would put the aircraft down using your GPS nearest feature, your flight plan (filed or not), your engine out training, and your common sense, then you're going to have a little more difficult time convincing the DPE who failed you to give you another chance.
I'm absolutely not trying to scare you off of flying, but I've only got 500 hours and I've already been through a failed alternator at night and a nearly engine out landing by day (diminished power leading to a deviation and unscheduled "idled" landing) and it only takes once to know for certain whether you can pull these off with your training and good common sense, or panic and declare an emergency unnecessarily.
If you'd like to post a few examples of questions that gave you trouble, I know everyone who browses this forum will be helpful.

"or panic and declare an emergency unnecessarily" Worse, don't declare an emergency, try and skim past without actually knowing what to do, get yourself into a real muck and end up killing yourself plus a few others too.

Well then there's that ...


text:
How should I deal with a passenger experiencing hypoxia over the Grand Canyon?
I am taking my mom for a trip over the grand canyon. My mom lives at sea level, whereas I live at 5000ft, and workout at 8000ft daily.
The VFR lowest route over the Grand Canyon is 11,500ft MSL. If I am flying over this with my mother and she starts to exhibit signs of hypoxia, what are my options?
It is the law to remain at the prescribed altitudes and headings while flying around the Grand Canyon. That being said, obviously passenger safety comes before anything else. If my mom gets sick, I would have to drop in altitude, but what kind of consequences would I face for this?
In the event of hypoxia in one of these corridors, what would be the best way to deviate while remaining safe and courteous?

Also, can she stay with you at 5000-8000 feet for a few days before the flight? Partial or gradual acclimatisation may help her, even a little.

As a sea level guy myself, high altitudes are no joke.  I'm fine flying at up to around 7,000 feet for an hour or 2.  9,000 for a couple hours or more and I get headaches.  11,000 for even just an hour and I'm sick the rest of the day.  I spent a day at Lake Tahoe (6,000) and was in sad shape by the end of the day, didn't feel better until we got off the mountain.

Your first two paragraphs are answered well so far. The second two really sound like they should be a separate question, related to this one.

If I don't change anything, I cannot save the edit. I edit to improve a post, but anyone can disagree and revert.

If you are referring to this answer's revision, I added the reference to point to the article about Oxygen Saturation. I did mention that the change I made.

People handle altitude in very different ways.  My wife was physically sick all night at Lake Titicaca (~12k ft).  We took the next flight back to Cusco (11.2k ft) the next day - then she was OK.  Then when she was a couple of months pregnant, she literally passed out at 7200 ft when camping in the sierras. Of course proper acclimatization is essential.  Previously we had hiked the Thorung La Pass (17.8k ft) with no more than headaches and shortness of breath after good acclimatization

If I do X that is likely to get problem Y what should I do?     The only reason I am thinking of doing X is to impress my mother.
Then don’t do X!

@IanRingrose - Do I think my mom is going to  get sick?  No.  It it a possibility that I should be prepared for, yes.  Is "impressing mom" the only reason that I want to take this trip?  Of course not.  I think this flight will be a fun challenge that I am prepared for.  I also plan to land at Marble canyon for a few minutes which is inside the canyon at 3000ft.  Stopping off at a low altitude will also help alleviate any "danger."

Lots of good information in comments below question and below answers that could be incorporated into an answer.  An answer in two parts, dealing both with non-acute hypoxia and also dealing with acute hypoxia and other problems-- unlikely as they may be in a flight of the nature being described-- could be a really great answer.

First, let's be crystal clear on something: A person experiencing symptoms of acute hypoxia is an emergency which requires immediate action to ensure the safety of that person. In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule …  to the extent required to meet that emergency. (FAR 91.3 (b)).
So if you're over the Grand Canyon at 11,500 feet and your mother starts showing signs of hypoxia you key the mic and let ATC know you have a passenger showing signs of hypoxia, tell them you are descending to a lower altitude, and ask for vectors to an airport where you can land. If they give you any trouble about it you respond with "N12345 is declaring a medical emergency".

All that said, there are sensible things you can do to mitigate the risk of hypoxia and avoid the need to declare an emergency.
If you intend to spend an extended period of time at altitude (which I personally define as "Over 10,000 feet" for an average healthy non-smoker):

Bring a portable oxygen system
Ideally with enough cannulas/outlets for yourself and your mother/other passengers).
If a full oxygen system isn't an option bring one or more "boost cans"
These can provide temporary/limited relief for symptoms of hypoxia – probably enough to get yourself back on the ground, or at least to a lower altitude.
Carry a relatively inexpensive pulse oximeter
Check your SpO2 periodically to catch hypoxia early - before clinical symptoms develop.

Hypoxic hypoxia is an emergency for the aircrew, but not so much for the passengers. The only time a hypoxic passenger at that altitude would worry me is if my aircraft was supposed to be pressurized. There are certainly safe levels of hypoxia that will make you feel weird, but not have any lasting effects. You can live indefinitely at 11,500ft. However, DCS and carbon monoxide poisoning are completely different and would require immediate medical attention.

@RhinoDriver I have to respectfully disagree with the assessment that a hypoxic passenger is not an emergency. Hypoxia in an otherwise healthy adult is not something to be taken lightly: SpO2 < 90% triggers medical intervention (supplementary oxygen) in most clinical settings, and by the time symptoms of hypoxia become apparent SpO2 is may be as low as the mid-80% range. That is unlikely to cause lasting harm if reversed, but you want to be sure it doesn't get worse so your priority should be taking swift action (providing oxygen or descending) to ensure your passenger's safety.

Sure I'd agree with your general assessment; however, in this instance at 11,500ft any hypoxia would be very minor and I would suggest a greater emergency would exist if you found yourself making a rapid descent below MSA. We actually train to recognize the symptoms of hypoxia, and fly in a simulator where flight docs drop our O2. Aside from being hilarious watching a drunk guy try to fly, the experience is invaluable training that helps you recognize your own symptoms. I got as low as 85% without further incidence, and all symptoms are relieved immediately once back on O2.

@RhinoDriver 11,500 feet won't be a problem for most people. If you have a symptomatic passenger though they're clearly not most people: You can't say they're fine and the hypoxia is "minor" if their lips are turning blue or they're disoriented and babbling. The number on the altimeter has no bearing on this decision. It's a purely clinical call based on symptoms, and it should be a pretty easy one for a pilot to make (assuming they're not hypoxic too).

I think we're really on the same page here.  If someone's lips are blue or they're babbling incoherently, then there is a serious problem. However, when most people talk about hypoxia symptoms, the ones you can usually self diagnose are things like euphoria, rapid heart beat, hot flashes, if you've made it to babbling then you're in some deep trouble.  I just don't believe at 11,500 that a normal healthy person will experience hypoxia symptoms like you've described.  Babbling at that altitude would like indicate other serious underlying medical conditions.

Age and overall health matter hugely. Hypoxia in an elderly person, someone with COPD, etc. is significantly more dangerous than in a younger person and can't be dismissed as something they'll get over.

You don't have to divert, in fact it may be a bad option depending on conditions (I would recommend you don't go if conditions will make diverting dicey though). You can treat the hypoxia with low cost bottled oxygen supplies specifically made for this situation.
At 11,000ft it's unlikely lack of oxygen will make your mother really ill, a top of oxygen is all she's likely to need. A pony bottle should let you get through your flight if she exhibits some symptoms, at 12 bucks a pop you can buy 2 just in case.

That bottle says it contains enough oxygen for 120 inhalations. How long (how much flight time) would that last?

Thanks for the answer.  And I'll see if I can get one of those bottles locally (the flight is in two days).  If not I guess I'll just bring a few barf bags...

@ChrisW Most places say that those bottles last about 10 minutes.  For me, one calm inhale/exhale is about 3-4 second.  So that bottle would last me about 7 minutes.  Assuming they don't actually last that long, I would feel comfortable assuming there's 5 minutes usable in there.

It's 10 minutes if you're constantly sucking on it, but it's unlikely someone needs that much at that altitude. More likely just a few pulls a minute would be enough to alleviate symptoms. Of course you may be able to rent a full portable oxygen system from a local FBO.

The boost bottles can last quite a while if you're just having a passenger puff on them occasionally to keep SpO2 above 90% while you work out a diversion - they're somewhat less practical for the pilot though (because they occupy one of your hands)

The simple answer is to rent or buy a supplemental O2 system for Mom.
Don't fake this one.  As Voretaq7 said in the first answer, "A person experiencing symptoms of acute hypoxia"  Focus on the word "acute".  Just having your Mom feeling a little light-headed is probably not going to hold up as a valid reason to divert lower in any faa action. And if their google-fu is good and they find this website, you will not be able to claim that you were not aware of the potential for a problem.
The reason for my warnings:  They are serious about the altitude restrictions over the Grand Canyon.  Diverting should be reserved for a truly unexpected emergency.  Just get the supplemental O2 system and you are covered.

Yes, to clarify a bit when I say "symptoms of acute hypoxia" I'm talking the major symptoms: disorientation, obvious cognitive impairment, cyanosis (blue fingers/lips), etc. – Before that point you may want to start planning how you're going to get lower, but you're not at the threshold I would personally consider an emergency.

I ordered two of the disposible bottles of O2 that people linked.  I also remember my mom going on a commercial helo ride over the canyon a few years ago and she never mentioned any problems with that.  I honestly think she should be fine, but like you said, I do know the risks, and I don't want to put her (or my pilot licence and AFROTC career) in danger.

In principle at least, you can begin to experience hypoxia at 5000ft. By 10,000ft, it's affecting your eyesight, and probably starting to affect your judgement a little. At 15,000ft, your judgement can be measurably impaired, and you'll often experience euphoria, so you can't TRUST your judgement even if you think everything is okay.
Your personal experience and thresholds may vary.
FAR 91.211 spells out supplemental oxygen requirements. At 11,500, you're close enough to the FAR regs (12,500) that you really ought to be carrying supplemental oxygen. These regs are known to be very liberal. Bring some oxygen for both of you and no worries.

But as someone acclimated to 8,000ft, I am much less likely to start experiencing symptoms at 11,500 than someone who just came from sea level.

@SpongeBob - Less likely doesn't mean it cannot happen. Being prepared could mean the difference between making it back safely or ending up on the canyon wall.

The 5,000ft number comes from the aeromedical chapter on hypoxia, and they say it primarily affects night vision.

A pretty large exaggeration.  10k feet should have enough oxygen to completely alleviate hypoxia symptoms (save perhaps night vision). Not only is an emergency descent to 10k feet in our emergency procedures for hypoxic crew members, but our flight doctors have briefed us the same as well.

The reason 10k feet is used as a floor is that you can probably hang out there for a while (probably up to an hour) safely.  Acute Mountain Sickness sets in for most people at around 8,000ft when they're continuously exposed.  High Altitude Cerebral Edema and High Altitude Pulmonary Edema begins at prolonged exposures above 10,000ft for non-acclimated people (acclimation takes days, sometimes weeks).

authors: ГАССАН фарах


text:
What exactly is a "drone"?
I was under the impression that things like this:

and soon this

and even this

Are drones.
When and how did the media and the general public get the idea that these:

Are also drones?
I'm not going to argue with the fact that the label has been given.  But remote controlled quad coppers are just another type of remote controlled aircraft, what makes them different from RC planes and RC helos?  (Nothing.)  So why are they being deliberately group with full sized military aircraft that are used for killing terrorist and patrolling dangerous regions?
So, while RC quad copters have been labeled by the public and the media as "drones" are they really?  What makes "a drone" really a drone?

When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. - H. Dumpty, on the definition of "Drone"

Like my recent question, this may be one for EL&U

@Pondlife A regulatory definition should exist -- I'm not sure it does right now, but it should!

@voretaq7 I agree, but I suspect that UAV is the formal term whereas drone is the informal or media-friendly one

I like the definition at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle.  IMHO it has nothing to do with size or mission.

Until recent media coverage, I was under the impression that a drone was an unmanned vehicle (aerial, ground based, underwater or other) that could autonomously carry out some task on it's own vs one that was controlled by a human operator.  This is what the DARPA Challenges centered around: http://www.livescience.com/44272-darpa-self-driving-car-revolution.html

It's a kind of bee.

If a consumer quadcopter carries a vial of nerve gas, was it any less lethal than a $$MM 'drone'?

Worth noting this 2014 editorial from the Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems, who are cheerfully forthright about their position - http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/full/10.1139/juvs-2014-0009

@hobbs: Bee'd me to it...

General usage
According to Etymology Online The term drone, meaning "pilotless aircraft" dates from 1946.
It evidently encompasses all types of aircraft where no onboard human pilot is needed, either because the human pilot operates the aircraft remotely (still true for most types of military "drone" aircraft I believe) or because the aircraft systems are capable of full autonomy during some of all of a flight.
The earliest uses were probably "target drones". Which is what Wikipedia suggests.
The term does seem to have supplanted "RC aircraft" for modern small RC aircraft, especially those which carry a camera and/or from which their operators derive some value other than simply from mastering the skill of flying the vehicle.
English language is defined by usage, not by edict. So this isn't subject to rulings or appeal.
Lawmakers or other bodies might define the term more narrowly but this doesn't affect other uses of the same word.
FAA definition
The FAA talks mainly about "model aircraft" and "unmanned model aircraft" (ref.) and about Unmanned Aircraft(UA)  or Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). (ref.)
They usually don't use the term drone or define it, but from their FAQ it seems they consider the terms drone and UAS to be equivalent

Myth #7:The FAA is lagging behind other countries in approving commercial drones.
Fact– This comparison is flawed.  The United States has the busiest, most complex airspace in the world, including many general aviation aircraft that we must consider when planning UAS integration, because those same airplanes and small UAS may occupy the same airspace.

because the aircraft systems are capable of full autonomy during some of all of a flight Are there any drones capable of fully automated operation with no human assistance?

@Firee As I understand it, the military ones must have some onboard programming on what to do if/when communication with home base is lost, whether momentarily or for a longer duration. At this point, it's capable of full autonomy. Part of that is probably not "finish mission by deploying ordinance", rather, "continue loitering on station, relaying SIGINT" or "return to base", but who knows...

"Drone" is a very general expression for a wide range of vehicles, and it is mostly used by the press and outsiders. Lately, the word has been picked up by Marketing to give model aircraft a more fancy label. People who design and use unmanned aircraft tend to use more specific expressions.
Will it return?
The earliest use of unmanned vehicles was for one-way missions, either as flying targets or as flying bombs. While the flying bombs are today mostly called cruise missiles, the term "drone" initially was reserved for the unarmed variety, serving as targets. Note that technical limits would not allow the early models to make a controlled landing. They were one-way vehicles. Only later, with better radio control, could target drones be reused.
Will it fly autonomously?
With the immense increase in computing power, the pilot did not have to be in the loop all the time, and unmanned vehicles learned to land to be reused. The term "drone" never was used by those who designed and built them in order to make a distinction between their sophisticated unmanned vehicles and those dumb, one-way drones. The whole combination of ground station, data relay and flying vehicle became an unmanned system to stress the multi-component nature of these things. The vehicle itself is now called a UAV for unmanned aerial vehicle, or UCAV in case of armed unmanned combat aerial vehicles. Other functions gave rise to names like HALE (high altitude, long endurance) which doesn't even mention the unmanned nature of these craft. But they never are called drones by their makers.
Does it carry ordnance?
If you answer all three questions "No", it is a drone. Strictly speaking, if one question has a positive answer, there is a better term for it. Note that the first question also excludes model aircraft but also more modern target drones! Taking the examples in your question, only the third picture shows a drone (if it will be shot at later and there is a distinct likelihood that it doesn't land in one piece).
Use of the term by the general public
Unfortunately, the more specific terms have never left the ghetto of specialist technical terminology, and the press has decided to call all unmanned aircraft "drones". It is similar to the word "hacker" which originally described computer experts and now is used for criminals by the public.

"(...) the term "drone" initially was reserved for the unarmed variety, serving as targets." It still is.

Note that while now and then a destructive test with live warhead might be done, most missile tests are done with dummy warhead and the QF-16 drone returns to be used another day. It probably still qualifies as drone, since that is the original meaning (according to WP it originated as a pun on the name of the first target drone, de Havilland Queen Bee).

"was reserved for the unarmed.." Drones certainly have been weaponized since the beginning of the use of the term. What about the V1 or powered & gliding bombs in WWII controlled (not autonomous) through a spooled wire by either a ground controller or bombardier and referred to as "drones". It seems drones has meant whatever was in the mind of the author but most generally "unmanned".

@jwzumwalt: Who did the referring? Certainly not the designers, manufacturers or the users. The term drone has been overused by the press but that does not mean that we should commit that mistake, too. If you only had read the last section …

An actual drone is a male honeybee which makes no honey and has no sting. The word is likely an imitatation of the sound they make when swarming. Calling military target aircraft drones was probably originally a humourous analogy. They carry no cargo, have no armaments, and like the drone which dies after its midair mating they do their job only once.
From this perspective calling an armed aircraft such as the Predator a drone does not make much sense. It performs work, most definitely has a sting, and flies many times. But the term was already familiar in the military and so its meaning got extended.
Because the meaning has recently been extended without much thought going into it, there is no broad agreement on what it means. Some would like to see the term used only for aircraft which display drone-like behavior. Others are willing to apply it to most any aircraft without a human pilot on board.

While this is definitely interesting background, it doesn't serve the core question of what "drone" means in modern aviation usage

Thanks for you comment. You are right, it was not a full answer. I would have liked to comment on an existing answer, but am not allowed to yet because I am new here. I have expanded and rewritten my reply so that it answers the question.

The word drone comes from 1935, where U.S. Adm. William H. Standley watched the DH 82B Queen Bee (one of the first remote controlled aircrafts!) presentation. As said by DavidC, a drone is a male bee, which is needed for reproduction only! The term drone was adopted though, as a homage to the Queen Bee. The term would also fit as the only way for the plane to function is by a controller on a "mother" plane or on the ground (lazy people were called drones in England at that time).
What is considered to be a drone now can obviously be approached differently! The FAA has its definitions, H. Dumpty has a very wide way of interpreting it, I guess.
As it was misused by media a lot, the term drone must have been put on a lot of things, making a clear definition hard!
More information about the origin of the word "drone".

The word drone can refer to a target drone, which may be a purpose built remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) or a manned aircraft converted to an RPV for use as a target, or it may refer to a UAV or UCAV which is employed in a combat role. The word is ambiguous, but useful for some media people who can't remember what "UAV" stands for.


text:
Are nuclear bombers themselves damaged after dropping bombs?
Shock waves resulting from low intensity explosions can easily reach 10,000m/s.  About 5% of the energy released in a nuclear air burst is in the form of ionizing radiation: neutrons, gamma rays, alpha particles and electrons moving at speeds up to the speed of light (thus, carrying a hell of a lot of energy).  With these stats it appears that for the bomber as well, a nuclear bomb is very bad. How are they protected?

The UK's nuclear "V" bomber fleet were initially painted in "anti-flash white" due to concerns about heat and light emitted from the explosion.

Anti-flash white paint schemes were braught up here.

They can also use this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toss_bombing

Now I have an image of a B-2 doing an Immelmann stuck in my head :-D

Mostly, no.
The number one factor protecting the aircraft from the effects of the explosion is distance. The aircraft is traveling at a sufficient speed to be very, very far away from the bomb before it detonates. All effects of the explosion can be multiplied by the fraction: 1 / r, where r is the distance between the bomb and the bomber at donation (because circumference is directly proportional to radius). While the effects may be great at the target, they spread out as the circle grows.
Detailed Analysis:
As you emphasize the speed of light of radiation from nuclear reactions, I would like to write something about radiation and how it could influence the aircraft.
Radioactivity
Nuclear radiation consists of gamma rays, which are some sort of EM waves and particles like helium nuclei (alpha), electrons (beta) and neutrons (without Greek letter...). There is also some more stuff like positrons, protons or heavier fragments of the nuclei, but they behave similarly.
The particles indeed escape with a large fraction of the speed of light, but this has nothing to do with the nuke. They will escape with the same speed from a nuclear reactor or from tiny probes in a lab. The nuke just spills more particles than the probe, but does not give them more speed.
Alpha & beta radiation
You may know you can stop alpha particles by a piece of paper and beta particles by a 3mm sheet of aluminium. In air (ground, room temperature), alpha particles can travel not more than 10cm, and electrons not more than 10m. The exact range depends on the energy of the particles, but these are the maximum ranges for nuclear reactions. Also, the distances depend on the density of the air, so they travel farther in hot air / at high altitude.
In general, there is a high electric field inside atoms, and the charged particles.
Finally, these two particle types will never reach the aircraft throwing the bomb. Even if they could, they would be stuck in the hull and not do any damage.
Neutrons
While alphas and electrons are absorbed on a short range because their charge interacts with the strong fields inside the atoms they are traveling through, neutrons are neutral (really!), which makes them very special. They like to travel through heavy materials like lead, but are easily stopped by plastic or water (one reason for that large swimming pools in nuclear power plants, though swimming usually is prohibited). The reason is that neutrons are like ping pong balls, and lead atoms like basketballs. The basketball will not notice when it's hit by the ping pong ball, while the ping pong ball flies ahead with the same velocity, but different direction. The next hit(s) with other basketballs may put the ping pong ball into its original direction, still with the same speed.
Hydrogen on the other side is a atom as light as the neutron, hence it's like resting ping pong balls. When hit by the neutron, a hydrogen atom is punched back and absorbs a large fraction of the neutrons energy, causing it to slow down. If the hydrogen atom is bound in a molecule, it may be separated from it during this process. That's why plastic is a good shielding material, but nitrogen and oxygen in the air are already too heavy atoms, so air is a bad shielding material.
The metal the aircraft is made of is (nearly) not affected by neutrons. Unfortunately, almost every molecule of the human body contains hydrogen, especially the DNA. While the pilots do not suffer imminent injuries from radiation, this may increase the chance to get cancer.
However, Paul Tibbets, pilot of the Enola Gay (Hiroshima bomb) died in the age of 92.
One fact: "Neutron bombs" are nukes optimized to release a gigantic amount of neutrons. When ignited at high altitude, it kills all animals and humans, leaving the infrastructure (and almost all plants) intact. It's good that they are proscribed by all nations.
Gamma radiation
Coming to gamma radiation. People are most afraid of it, as it penetrates anything, and you know, the Hulk was created by it. Its nature is that all the photons it's made of have a tiny chance to interact with the atoms they are passing by. A few photons are stopped, the rest go ahead. This is why each centimeter of material reduces the intensity by a certain factor, but you will never shield gamma range completely (mathematically). Typical gamma rays need some 10cm of aluminium to reduce the intensity to 50%, or less than 10cm of lead. So, it will pass the aircraft's hull and also the pilots. Again, it will not influence the aircraft. And because it only reacts here and there with matter, there is a high chance the pilot's body will repair the damages, and the pilot will not turn green.
Other effects
Shock wave
As said in the other answers, the explosion causes a big shock wave which will definitely shatter and possibly damage the aircraft. Wikipedia says about the Tsar bomb that it was released from about 10km altitude and detonated at 4km. Using a parachute, the bomb was slowed down allowing the aircraft to travel 45km after release. Yet, the aircraft fell about 1km when it was overtaken by the shock wave.
Edit: The shock wave travels at the speed of sound, so the faster the aircraft, the farther away it is when it's overtaken by the shock wave, and the lower the intensity is. (And there are supersonic aircrafts... However, the Tsar shock wave traveled around the earth three times)
Heat
A nuclear bomb releases a lot of heat. It is said that in Hiroshima, trees 10km away from the explosion caught fire. But the aircraft was farther away and its hull is not only well cooled, but also much less inflammable than a dry tree in the summer. Nevertheless, the "Tsar-bomber" was painted with a special heat-reflecting paint according to the Wikipedia article.
EMP
Each nuclear bomb also releases a electromagnetic pulse, which can damage wide electric circuits like power grids as well as any semiconductors. However, the hull of an aircraft already provides some protection against this, and the protection can be improved more to make the aircraft EMP-hard. While today's bombers should be immune to EMP due to these protections, I guess the ones which actually have thrown a nuke were immune as they didn't use any semiconductors.
Summary
It turns out that radioactivity is not an issue because not all parts have the range to reach the aircraft, and those which do, have no influence on the aircraft.
The highest thread comes from the shock wave, which definitely damage the aircraft or at least bring it into an odd situation. I don't know what an issue heat is, but the Tsar bomber had some heat reflective painting, and an aircraft usually has a good cooling by its environment. EMP is not an issue as military aircrafts are usually already protected against them.
Remarks
Of course, radiation damage / effects depend on the time something was exposed to radiation as well as the intensity. So, when I wrote gamma rays will not harm the pilot that much, this already includes a larger distance and thus lower intensity. Near the detonation, the gamma radiation alone would kill you.
Being exposed to radiation does not automatically make an object radioactive itself. Gamma rays do not make anything radioactive, they ionize atoms and may destroy molecules. The particles may be captured by atoms forming new isotopes / elements. This isotopes / elements may be stable, or may not. If not, that atom is radioactive. However, for most materials, this induced radioactivity has a short decay time.
As said, alpha particles are not an issue as shielding against them is easy, they even can not penetrate the skin. Harmless? Body cells are most vulnerable to radiation damage during their separation, and your guts are covered with mucous membrane, where this happens very frequently. Swallow a piece of alpha emitting material, and getting cancer is more likely than just possible.
You see, radiation is a vast topic, and what I wrote about aircrafts and pilots may be correct for them, but not in general. Their main protection is: Distance is the best shielding, the farther away, the better.

Hmmm, this answer got a bit longish... sorry for that.

There also the small problem of most of your own runways being nuked before you get home to land....

True, but most larger nukes today would come by missile, hmh?

and the would get to "your" airport before you can,, as missile are faster then aircraft.    Hence do the planners even care if the aircraft survives?

"... though swimming usually is prohibited" - see http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

It might be nice to sum it up to answer the question. The answer is in there but it's spread way out. I suggest ending with "In short: The type of damage put out by a nuclear blast is mitigated in several ways like [x] so the bomber and crew remain relatively safe...etc etc" (obviously phrased better). Great breakdown and explanation of the different parts!

Electrons can only travel "not more than 10m"?  Try telling that to a bolt of lightning!

@MasonWheeler: In lightning does a single electron travel a long distance? A link would be nice.

@MasonWheeler: Of course, they can travel more than 10m - in vacuum or when pulled by an electrical force. But electrons from radioactive decays come with an initial energy as if they were accelerated by some 10kV to 10MV. Without any electrical force, they will stop within 10m in air. And... lightnings and usual electrics are a complete different story.

@MasonWheeler same as in an electrical circuit, in a lightning bolt each electron travels hardly any distance at all. Current is NOT flowing electrons, it's flowing charge. That charge flows by being transfered from one electron to another, not by the charged electrons themselves moving more than a tiny distance.

It should be 1/r^2; the shockwave is expanding in a (hemi)sphere.

The kind of long-range EMP you're probably thinking of is only an issue for nukes detonated at very high altitude; although near-surface detonations do produce a type of EMP, this is only strong enough to be an issue in the area that's also getting incinerated, blown apart, etc.

Usually by releasing it from a high altitude or at a high speed.  Either one allows some time for the aircraft to depart the immediate vicinity prior to detonation.
The weapon itself can have some control.  It can have parachutes that increase the time to reach the target or slow it down, or the weapon can have a time delay even after reaching the ground.
Besides having altitude or speed, the airplane can also toss the weapon in a way that gives additional separation.

There have been cases of aircraft being damaged when dropping nuclear weapons during testing, but AFAIK none have been destroyed as a result.
And those incidents were most likely caused by a test device having a higher than anticipated yield, thus causing the blast effects to have a longer than expected range.

None of the aircraft involved in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were damaged as a result, nor was it common during testing.
Even the aircraft involved in the biggest nuclear test ever, the 50MT czar bomba dropped by the Soviets over Nova Zembla, was not damaged (or not seriously) as a result.

Dropping as far away from the intended point of destination is a good way to limit exposure to both radiation and blast, standoff launching by over the shoulder drops or rocket assisted bombs or missiles can allow launching from even greater distances and/or launching from behind terrain featues (like hills), thus actively shielding the launching aircraft.
And the launching aircraft can ensure they place the smallest possible cross section to the point of detonation (iow, turn sharply away from the target zone).

Generally no, or not much, but there were few cases when such mission would have been the last take off ever for the bomber:

Tsar bomba, the biggest bomb ever detonated, had 100 Mt yield in its full capacity. This does not leave the bomber many chances to escape. During the test, the yield was reduced till 50 Mt hence the Tu-95 that dropped it was not damaged. I wonder how it would have been during the real war.
Due long distances, some B-52 attacks were envisioned as one way missions with ditching areas planned. In this case the problem is with the distance, not with the bomb.

Czar Bomba, if produced, would have been delivered by ICBM rather than bomber. A variant of the accident plagued N1 rocket was envisioned to carry the 100MB behemoth.

I am not fully sure on this, it was almost too heavy even for Tu-95

the 100MT variant would not have been any larger or more massive than the 50MT variant. The main difference would have been replacing the lead casing and tamper with uranium ones. The difference in weight introduced by that is minor.

There is no any reliable source on that Soviet Moon rocket (N1) was meant for delivering this bomb. Saturn V was not an ICBM either.

I've read it in several books relating to the Soviet nuclear and space programs. Whether the design team ever seriously thought it would work is one thing, but they did suggest it to the Politburo. Of course the military viability of the Czar Bomba as an actual weapon has also not been established. Many people believe it never was intended to be weaponised, was purely a publicity stunt.


text:
Is there some functionality of an airliner which is not controlled by the cockpit?
We have had a blockbuster question, asking about the complexity of the cockpit, which was answered very well. With so many controls, are there any flight- or safety-critical functions which cannot be controlled by the cockpit?

This really depends on the complexity of the aircraft. Others have given great answers for transport-category (airliner) & commuter-category (smaller jet / propeller) aircraft, but in something like a Cessna 172 or a Piper Meridian about the only thing you can't control from the pilot's seat are the doors behind you.

Hopefully those edits will satisfy the VtC crowd. If I went too far, please feel free to revert.

@FreeMan thanks!

You cannot (as far as I know),

Flush the toilets
Control the IFE system (aside from possibly pulling the breaker to shut it off)(there seems to be some debate on this one and it could vary by plane/system)
Open the doors (of a passenger plane, cargo planes this may be possible)
Update the software for glass cockpit planes (if the computers are not located in the cockpit). I'm still looking for the link but FMS units are updated via USB on a unit usually housed with the other flight computers which is often below the cockpit. In some smaller planes these units are in the cockpit as are the USB ports so this may only hold for some aircraft.
General passenger tasks (reading lights etc). Although it should be noted that generally speaking the master breakers are in the cockpit so while they may not have control over individual system components (e.g. single reading lights) they can often shut them down completely if need be.
Ovens (for heating meals) and coffee machines. Only circuit breakers are in cockpit again (and they are needed; faults in these things cause relatively high fraction of diversions).

You also cannot dump the lavatory waste tanks from the cockpit, contrary to an urban myth. Individual reading lights cannot be controlled either, though the cockpit probably has access to the breaker for all reading lights.

Can the pilot keep the lavatory door locked to make sure that I'll flush the toilet before leaving?

@Farhan - if only! sigh...

Aside the IFE, you may mention all passenger-related tasks (including cabin temperature and lights)

@ManuH: Cabin temperature and ambient light can be controlled from cockpit. Only the reading lights and the individual air blowers on each seat can't be.

Of course, you mentioned reading lights because they're something that conceivably could be centrally controlled, but you also can't buckle passengers' seat belts for them, and that's a safety function so within the OP's scope.

Seatback position.  It appears the crew must ask all passengers to perform this task.  Not sure if this counts for the purposes of this question.

@DigitalTrauma Also in case of emergency, you can't control the passengers' screams!

@Michael Isn't that why pilots wear headphones?

@Dave unfortunately, this does not answers the question (other than point 3) .flight- or safety-critical functions which cannot be controlled by the cockpit?

Point 4 is very much a flight related point, 1 and 6 could be come safety related and they have literally turned planes around because of bathroom issues. Any of the other ones could have potential safety impacts during an emergency you would want to potentially display things on the IFE system. So this very much does answer the question.

Okay, happy ? :)

In the business jets (transport category jets) that I have flown, the FMS's / avionics (including the ProLine 21 that you link to) specifically prohibit updates while in flight, even though the USB drive is accessible in flight.

The doors (through which the passengers board or disembark) are not in control of the cockpit, in an airliner. There may be signals indicating the state of the doors (and their locks), but the doors themselves are opened or open-able manually.

And before anyone asks, no you can't open the door of an airliner in flight

I am certain pilots cannot control galley carts position especially in turbulence. These units are manually controlled by flight attedants and maybe out of control in rough weather if not properly secured.

In addition to many other things listed in answers, the biggest thing that pilots can't control from cockpit are "tools" like drunk passengers, cell-phone during flight users, loud passenger groups. And excluded from "tools" category, but still uncontrollable are babies. :)


text:
Why are magnetic headings used for designating runways?
Runways are numbered based on compass heading. Why?
Does this help pilots in locating the runway, even in today's GPS age? Or are there some other technical reasons behind this?

Because there is no other sensible way of doing it? Many aircraft do not have GPS

It's important to note that GPS doesn't have any way of measuring heading. GPS-enabled devices that do show an actual heading (as opposed to a track) are actually just using an internal magnetic compass.

And there is no sensible way to show True North

There are two parts to the question:
Why number runways based on their direction?
The runways have to be identified somehow and the identification has to be directional. So the, rounded, heading offers itself and it has advantage that:

The pilot can verify they are approaching the intended runway by looking at the compass, which

works at night, in bad visibility or early on the approach when the numbers on the ground are not visible yet and
serves as cross-check for verifying the instruments are set correctly during instrument approaches.

Since the pilot needs to know the runway heading for navigation and for checking the wind anyway, it makes it easier to remember.

Why use magnetic heading instead of true?
In the early days of aviation, magnetic compass was the only tool available for determining direction. It is simple and reliable and well tested in naval navigation. So magnetic headings became the obvious standard.
Later gyrocompass was introduced to overcome the limitation of magnetic compass that it is biased in turns and requires some time to stabilize. However gyrocompass precesses, so it has to be periodically corrected, which was, and is, still done by reference to the magnetic compass.
On the other hand GPS is still a rather recent technology. It is only precise enough to determine heading (or rather tracking) for last 15 years. It requires a complex electronic device that can fail in a myriad of ways and it is affected by many external factors including the state of ionosphere and the selective availability not being turned on again.
And not all aircraft have GPS anyway. So if you wanted to switch the ones that use GPS to true headings, there would still be some that would need to use the magnetic and it would be a mess. On the other hand when you have GPS, you have a computer already and it can contain and use the magnetic declination tables to give you magnetic heading as well.

Note that movement of the North Magnetic Pole theoretically  requires periodic renumbering of runways;  the famous St Maarten runway was renumbered from 09/27 to 10/28 in 2008, while remaining fixed at 082/262 True...

@DJohnM: Yes, it does. And the VORs have to be occasionally adjusted as well.

Palo Alto renamed their runway from 12/30 to 13/31 about a decade ago.

... and LKPR renamed one runway from 13/31 to 12/30 a few years ago; the declination changes differently in different parts of the world.

In addition, large airport complexes with a lot of runways pointing the same direction often have to cheat a little; DFW's two western runways are 18/36 while its three eastern ones are 17/35, even though all five are parallel and there's nowhere near 10 degrees difference in magnetic declination between them all. Hartsfield-Jackson is similar, using 8/26, 9/27 and 10/28 for its five parallel runways.

@KeithS Any time four or more runways are parallel, the airport has to resort to that sort of trick of breaking the runways into groups of no more than three (L/C/R), which ironically makes it less likely magnetic drift will require further changes (as the numbering now spans 20 degrees rather than 10, and so long as one of them is right, there's no need to change them).

The aircraft heading is measured with reference to the magnetic north.
If the same convention is used for runways too, it will make it easy for the pilot to identify the runway and land as the aircraft's heading and the runway will be aligned.
For example, if the aircraft is directed to land in the runway 09, the aircraft heading will be 090° while landing.
Use of another system for naming will lead to unnecessary confusion. This convention is being used from long before GPS was available. Also,as already noted, a large number of aircraft flying today have no GPS and pilot should be able to land the aircraft even without it.

Not only should, but in the UK, you must demonstrate full navigation ability without reference to a GPS or similar in order to pass your skills test.

Runway 9? Do you mean 09?

Yes 09. Will edit the answer.

"to land in the runway 09, the aircraft heading will be 090° while landing." No, but it will be somewhere between 085° and 095°. I think there's an "approximately" missing in your sentence.

Yes it will be in that range. Thought I'll be able to put my point across more easily this way.

"Yes [the aircraft heading] will be in that range" ... unless you are doing a crosswind landing.  The aircraft track should be somewhere between 085° and 095, of course.

@Dan The same is true for the U.S.


text:
Did the SR-71 have any windshields?
In this video of a more complex cockpit, belonging to the SR-71, why don't we see any windshields? Were they not required for the SR-71, or are they not captured in this video? If windshields were actually not there, then please elaborate why!

Video

That's just a picture of the instrument panel, the SR-71 did have windows.

foolish question then... !!

Just seek the video to ~8:40 where the camera pans up over the windows and to the mirrors and periscope above them.

On the other hand note that the navigator station (behind pilot), also shown later in that video, did indeed not have forward view, only two side windows to provide some natural light. Unlike most 2-crew fighters it didn't have flight controls either.

The windshields would be getting so hot that the crew would actually heat up their rations by pressing them against the windshield, so, yes, the Blackbird did have windshields, and they were in some sense even vital to mission success :-D

I'm sorry but this is a completely ridiculous question. Just look at any exterior photograph of an SR-71 cockpit and you can see the windows as clear as day. Or, as @JanHudec points out, the windows are visible in the very video you're asking about.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is completely ridiculous. The answer is 100% obvious from looking at any exterior photograph of the plane.

@DavidRicherby yes this is, I am voting to close it as well! But, this bought a huge bunch of rep to the answerers  anyways...

There are forward-facing windows in the SR-71. The image you posted is just of the instrument panel. The windows are better visible in the photo below. This is from a simulator but gives a better idea of what the cockpit looks like when in flight.
The windows and cockpit are small due to the high speeds and altitudes that the plane is designed for, making the cockpit resemble a smaller fighter plane.

As a side note, there are planes without windshields, a notable example being the Spirit of St. Louis.

It did!
You can see a bit of it here

or in the reflection here

And here it is from the exterior


text:
Can I log my military training time as PIC, if I have a PPL?
It's my understanding that instrument and commercial training time can be logged as PIC, after you have a PPL.  I received my PPL in a standard C-172.
I was about to go through and log all my military training time (in the T-6 and T-38) this weekend, and was wondering if I can log all that as PIC?
This questions specifies that you must be be rated in the category and type to do so.  I'm not really sure what that means.  Of course I don't have any FAA ratings other than my PPL in the 172.
So, can I log my T-6 and T-38 time as PIC for my civilian records?
Thanks!

For FAA purposes you can log PIC time in the T6 because you hold a license in the airplane, single engine, land category and class.  However, the USAF might not see it that way.
Since you do not have an FAA license for the category and class multi engine land, you can only log PIC time for your solo flights in the T38.

Thanks!  I only had like 10 PIC hours before pilot training, so I'll take 85 more from the T6.  Kind of stupid about the dual engine.  It's really not cosmic... bummer it's considered so different for logging purposes.  And yeah, yte Air Force doesn't care about my FAA ratings at all.  So the even the T-6 time doesn't count for much as far as they're concerned.

You’re welcome.  I kinda had the reverse situation, got ATP Multi first, and only recently added commercial SEL.  You should be able to add commercial SEL and Multi on the basis of your military training.  Checkout Shepard air for the gouge if you haven’t already.


text:
How much extra work to get a glider licence?
I have my SEL Private VFR licence.  I recently went on a glider flight, and I loved it.  How much extra work does it take a typical pilot to transition from SEL to gliders?
What extra material will I have to learn?  And what overlaps?

Are you looking from a learning standpoint or about rules and regulations?

I am asking in terms of regulations.  But from a learning standpoint is something I'm interested in, too.  Can most of the work be done at home?  Or do I need a lot of extra ground school?

(I am assuming your question is asking about the FAA regulations.)
If you already have a PPL, then the requirements are modest. According to the Soaring Society of America:

Additional Pilot Rating
  Holders of a valid FAA Power plane license with 40 hours as pilot-in-command need a minimum of 10 solo flights to qualify to take the glider flight test. No written exam is required to add a glider rating to a power license. In all cases, refer to the Federal Aviation Regulations for details on pilot licensing.


text:
How do logbook endorsements work?
I'm just finishing up Air Force Pilot Training (UPT).
The day after graduation we are issued commercial certificates for SEL and MEL.
The military does things pretty different from the civilian world though.  I don't have any sort of physical log book of my military training in the T6 and T38.
Can I go rent a "high performance" "complex" airplane after I get my FAA commercial?  I don't have any logbook or endorsements, but all of my training would surely meet these requirements. The T-6 was 1100HP, and the T38 is an after-burning, supersonic jet.
I was hoping to take my family out flying over the holidays in a Cessna Twin.
I was home a few weeks ago and went into a local FBO and asked about renting a twin over the holidays.  They told me I didn't have the proper training in a "complex" "high performance" aircraft (they really acted like they didn't believe I was an Air Force pilot).
It almost seems like there's something about the civilian world that I'm not in the loop on.

Flying a Cessna 206 or other "light twin" is a lot different than a T-6 or T-38 (single engine ops for example are a lot easier when the engines are 3 feet apart and seriously overpowered). I wouldn't expect you to get checked out in one with less than 20 hours. Also a commercial certificate is not a PPL, so you would also need to get that.

See this document, specifically page 17. Also see Part 61, 61.73, Military pilots or former military pilots: Special rules.

@RonBeyer No, he doesn't need a PPL. He could rent a 172 & fly it IFR with his ratings as they are, but see my comment below on Centerline Thrust restriction on his MEL.

@Ron Beyer - I don't see a page 17 in your first link.

@MichaelHall The 17th page in the document, which is listed as Appendix 4 A-6 for some weird reason.

@Ron Beyer - I see, this is N/A though because he stated up front that he already has commercial certificates.  Also, if he has commercial but not private does that mean he is required to charge his passengers?

Well you’ll have to comply with the terms of §61.73 in order to convert your military pilot ratings over to civilian pilot certificates and ratings. You would also need to obtain a logbook endorsement to operate a complex and high-performance airplane legally under the FAA’s rules.  This really should not be challenging for you.  If you really want to rent a twin i.e. a Cessna 310, a Diamond DA 42, etc.,  I would approach your FBO and ask to do a check out in the aircraft that you wish to rent.  The FBO instructor can include both the complex, and if necessary, a high-performance logbook endorsement along with the training.  I don’t know how many hours total that you have - I assume it’s somewhere in the order of 200 or so hours, which s typical of UPT grads - but FBOs may have additional minimum hour requirements to rent said aircraft.  They may also have to consult with their insurance policies to see if such a thing as feasible given how little time you have on light twin airplanes.
Keep in mind here that while you have time in real 'high performance' airplanes, GA aircraft are going to handle differently than what you’d have expected. This is particularly true of light twins which are going to be a lot more treacherous in the event of an engine failure than a centerline thrust jet like a T-38 would be.  I’ve worked as a CFI in a couple of FBOs now and have had the opportunity to check out a number of military personnel on light GA aircraft.  Out of all the people that come through those places, the highest number of accidents on smaller GA aircraft for rent were caused by airline pilots and military pilots simply because they are not used to the feel and control characteristics of smaller, lighter aircraft.  A guy can have 1000 hours in F-22s and still struggle to land a Cessna 172 because the handling characteristics are so different.   Said check out may take several hours both to get familiarized with the handling characteristics of the airplane as well as become familiar with the avionics and operation within the NAS as a civilian pilot.

Plus, the MEL rating from the T-38 will have a Centerline Thrust Only restriction, so about the only twin he could rent would be a Cessna Skymaster. If his next aircraft is a multi with engines on the wings, the first Form 8 would be enough to remove the restriction; otherwise it'd take an FAA checkride to remove it.

Interesting point.  One would have to check whether their conversion to civilian CPL certificates would include that restriction.  In he moved onto a bomber unit ie B-52, B-1, B-2, etc that would be removed.  F-15 or F-22 units would not provide this.

I went that route... take the Military Equivalency exam, and presto, instrument + commercial multi w CL thrust restriction. I didn't train in the T-6, so no commercial SEL - still had PPL only for that from pre-AF days. A Form 8 from a Herk checkride removed the CL thrust limit, but as you say an F-15 or F-22 wouldn't. Renting SEL may be easier for the OP if he's bound for a jet like those.

I took up a friend who was a C-130 pilot (and some other stuff for training) in a C-172.  His initial judgements were WAY off (approach at 100 kts, flare at 100 ft...).  On the other hand I had to correct him exactly ONCE for each thing and he immediately got it.  If I told him an airspeed, the ASI just went there and stuck!  He was a very good pilot with no experience in a light single and both showed!

This needs some clean up... It reads mostly as a wall of text, and there are some phrases (like "by airline pilots in military pilots") that don't make much sense.

@Adam - and that is pretty typical.  Just a different airplane and your psychomotor reflexes start to become adapted to that platform if that's all you ever fly.

FYI, The CL thrust restriction is going, or has gone, away. Check out the memorandum linked in my answer.  Also, he stated that he already had his commercial SEL and MEL, (so 61.73 is OBE) and didn't mention any CL thrust restriction so I would assume that isn't an issue.

If that’s the case and his only multi time is in a T-38, that’s gonna be a serious issue if he wants to rent a light twin.   It’s going to require additional training on that aircraft. No FBO was going to rent the airplane to him, and no insurance company will cover them the fly it.

No argument there!  I have been in his shoes and asked those questions myself...  BTW, I had a CL thrust restriction from getting my commercial multi based on EA-6B time.  However, when I did my ATP checkride in a light piston twin the "boot full 'O rudder" needed on a SE missed approach felt actually about the same.  I assumed it would be worse.

@RalphJ they got rid of the center line thrust restriction, so that shouldn't be an issue.

So, I got the CPL.  If I find an instructor at my training squadron who has a CFI rating, can I have them sign off my endorsement?  And would it need to be an instructor I've flown with, or anyone with a CFI?

If you’re talking about a complex or high performance endorsement, any CFI, whether they’re a military IP or not, will have to conform with §61.31(e),(f).  I doubt such training would be very difficult for you.  Just a matter following the procedures and having them sign you off.

As far as the FAA is concerned, if it isn't in your logbook, it didn't happen. I suggest trying to get a copy of your military flight records and recreating a logbook (electronic or paper) of your experience to date. You may want a Certified Flight Instructor (CFI) to work with you on the first few entries to ensure you're doing it the standard way.
Endorsements are for things that aren't significant enough to require a separate checkride with a Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) but still significant enough that you need proof of having received training on them from a CFI, which means that CFI signing a statement to that effect in your logbook.
Again, it doesn't matter whether you have had the relevant training. What matters is having proof of that training.
There's also the matter of insurance, which most FBOs will need proof of before you can rent from them. And insurance companies will want to know your experience level before insuring you: total time, time in category, class and type, and time in various other categories such as complex. All of this will come from your logbook. The FBO will also need to do a "checkout" flight for any new renter, mostly for insurance purposes.
The good news is that the same few hours in the desired type with a CFI will count toward your time in type, complex and HP ratings, and checkout: this will make the FBO, insurer and FAA all happy, plus it will make sure you're actually prepared to fly that plane safely.
Also, I would suggest getting a copy the FAR/AIM (PDF on the FAA web site or dead tree edition). FAR 61 ("how to get your license"), FAR 91 ("how to lose your license") and the entire AIM are expected knowledge for civilian pilots. The military is exempt from so many of the rules that it is worth some review.

Good answer, I was typing mine at the same time!

Regarding how endorsements work, CFR 61.31 says this about complex aircraft.  "No person may act as pilot in command unless":

(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a complex airplane, or in a full flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a complex airplane, and has been found proficient in the operation and systems of the airplane; and
(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is proficient to operate a complex airplane.

Similarly, regarding high performance aircraft it says:

(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a high-performance airplane, or in a full flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a high-performance airplane, and has been found proficient in the operation and systems of the airplane; and
(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is proficient to operate a high-performance airplane.

There are a couple exemptions it mentions, if you have logged time before 1997, or have completed a part 135 checkride you are good to go.  Otherwise you need a log book endorsement.
I'm a little surprised the USAF doesn't use paper logbooks.  My opinion is that it would be in your best interest to create one, even if it is a 3 ring binder with printouts of all your flight hours, checkrides, etc.  I believe that a checkride in a complex high performance military aircraft from an authorized military instructor would meet the requirements of part 61.31, but as you have noted, any FBO renting you an airplane will give you some sort of checkout.  They will also require a certain minimum number of hours in type before they just hand you the keys.  That checkout out might as well include whatever endorsement is needed.
By the way, although you didn't mention this being an issue, the FAA is doing away with the centerline thrust restriction.  Check out the memorandum here:  http://www.sheppardair.com/download/Centerline%20thrust%20restriction%20removal%202018.pdf


text:
Is there a database of radio-frequencies for airfields/airports in Europe?
Is there something like a register of frequencies for airfields/airports in Europe? I am building a VFR flight planner and would be interested to autofill a form with the frequencies dependent on the given input data. Is there something like a database?

As far as I know, something like that doesn't exist. You would also face a lot of problems trying to auto detect which frequency to use, because local procedures are very different. Flying to an airport with 5 tower frequencies, how would you know which one to use?

Just my two cents: FlightAware has tons of data, and I know they list frequencies for airports. I cannot confirm Europe specifically, but it is worth checking out.

Try https://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadcms/eadsite/index.php.html . It is not a database but you have access to all AIPs from members of Eurocontrol .

The problem with this is that all you get is a huge list of PDF files. Each country has a slightly different format, and some of the PDF's are just scanned documents! Importing this into a database which could be used by an automated application would be a huge manual task, let alone keeping that database up to date.

For Germany I found a list of frequencies at Spitz Online (a private site of an enthusiast).
Excerpt:

It covers almost 700 airfields frequencies but I'm not sure how accurate it is.
For instance, I checked FRA/EDDF against OurAirports and noticed some differences.
He also lists different frequencies for the different purposes (APP, TWR, GND, ...), e.g. MUC/EDDM is listed with 33 (!) frequencies.
But – as a programmer – you might be able to parse the output of OurAirports. As far as I can see, the
URL is http://ourairports.com/airports/<ICAO_CODE>/pilot-info.html#comm and the returned HTML page
lists the frequencies in <section id="comm" class="tab-pane fade">. But you would have to parse
that yourself and I'm not sure whether they would really like that.
Update
I again visited OurAirports and found their data downloads page. It's accessible from the menu. They say:

For more intense work, we have a CSV-formatted data dump of all our airports, countries, and regions, which we update every night. You can download these files […] You can even use them to set up your own, competing airport web site if you'd like! We'd love you to give us credit, like we give credit to our sources, but you're not required to.

Right now the files have zero size (already indicated on that page) but when I looked yesterday they were all good and had reasonable sizes. The .csv with the frequencies had ~1.5 MB IIRC. So if you trust them, you could fetch the information from there. No need to crawl and parse their website. Note that this is not an “official” source but merely like a wiki where anybody who's signed-in can add and change DB entries.

This does not appear to be a reliable source, and as such should not be used operationally. Furthermore, since they offer no form of API, it would seem they are not interested in people simply crawling data from their site.

@J.Hougaard I totally agree and would not rely on this data but for the purpose of pre-filling a form in an app it may be a way to start with. Btw: OurAirports might not have an API but they – at least used to – offer their data for download. As of today all the files are empty. I don't know if that's a temporary problem or whether they stopped that service. But they do offer their airport data: http://ourairports.com/world.html → Data → airports.csv. It doesn't include frequencies, though.


text:
How can I calculate the glide time for a B737 with engine failure?
We talked today in our flight school about the following scenario: if I climb in my 737-800 to FL100 and then have a dual engine failure, how many seconds would it take me before I reach ground?
I'm assuming:

I want maximum glide time (not distance)
I'm within 10NM of the departure airport
Flaps 15
Gear extended
No speedbrakes

It depends.  Do you want to be on the ground as soon as  possible, or stay in the air as long as possible?  "I  want to return to the airport".  How far away is it?  What bearing are you flying relative to it?

Stay in the air as long as possible, 10NM out and flying standard traffic circuit pattern

Your question contradicts your assumptions (and vice versa).  If you want to know how long you can stay in the air, why does it matter how close you are to an airport?  OTH, If you want to know if you can make it to an airport 10NM away from an altitude of ten thousand feet in this configuration, that's a different question with a different answer.  Please clarify what you are asking.

RalpJ's answer addresses these concerns and variables, what's the problem with the question? Why the down votes? Are we accountants here or aviators?

@sesc360 If you want to stay aloft for as long as possible, you should fly at the maximum endurance speed for that configuration of flaps 15º and landing gear down. You can find that speed by observing the variometer at different glide airspeeds. The maximum endurance airspeed is the one that gives the minimum descent speed...

@bclarkreston I asked how far and what bearing from the airport because the OP stated a return to the airport.  How far and what bearing determine what glide profile to use and therefore, how long you will stay up.

@Simon my comment was actually directed at the OP.  Was hoping he would revise his question to eliminate the contradictions I mentioned.

For reference consider TACA Air Flight 110, a 737-300 that lost both engines at FL165, on approach to New Orleans in a very heavy hail/thunderstorm.
No exact listing of how long 110 stayed in the air with no power, but the Mayday/Air Disasters show on this incident hints that it was in the vicinity of 13-15 minutes, which indicates a drop rate of around 1100-1300fpm.
A heavier example was BA flight 9 a 747 that lost all four engines due to flying into a cloud of volcanic dust at night at FL370. This led to the classic announcement:
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress.
Fourteen minutes later at FL135, they got a restart. At that descent rate, they would have had maybe another nine minutes before hitting the ocean.

Your assumptions are incompatible with your stated goal of maximum duration.
For the longest time in the air, you want minimum drag, so gear down and flaps 15 isn't what you'd want.  It's a very rare day to have that configuration at 10,000' under any circumstances.  To be configured that high would mean that you wanted to come down quickly.
In a clean configuration, a 737 NG will fly at flaps up maneuvering speed & idle thrust at about 1100-1200 feet per minute.  Engines off & windmilling will add some drag, but the effect of that is probably considerably less than the difference between a nearly empty 737-800 with 10k of fuel, and a full 737-800 with lots of fuel.  You didn't specify a weight, and I don't have a simulator handy to get an exact number anyway, so let's say 1200 feet per minute from 10,000' down to about 2000'.  That's about 6 to 7 minutes there.
Then a level decel segment to slow and configure.  With no thrust, from flaps-up maneuvering speed down to a flaps 15 v-Target, that's at least one minute, probably a bit more.
Then the final segment, which would be the trickiest part, since your glide angle would be steeper than what you'd typically fly, with no ability to correct if you get shallow & slow.  I'm guessing here, but probably a vertical speed of 1500 feet per minute with flaps 15 & gear down and zero thrust.
Add all that up, you have ballpark of 8 to 10 minutes from 10,000 to a sea level landing, which includes time to slow and configure at a sensible point.
If you insist on starting already configured at 10,000 feet, then it's probably more like 6 minutes.
Starting at 10,000' and 10 miles from your departure airport, you have ample time and distance to set up for a landing -- the NG climbs much steeper than it glides.
"Good luck, we're all counting on you!"